Broad, stupid thread about gaming preferences

[it290]

This is a really wide and very philosophical/academic question, but having had a number of conversations recently with diverse individuals about what attracts them to games I have a theory that the core focal points of the medium have really shifted in the past few years and I'm hoping the kind members of shmupsforum will do me a solid by explaining what draws them to games in the first place. Your participation and comments are very much appreciated! Here's the survey:

Do you think of games primarily as:

1. A narrative/ludic experience whereby you encounter a series of challenges and overcome them in order to experience a story and/or create your own story, after which you're done and ready to move on to the next story?
2. A ludic experience whereby you encounter a series of challenges in order to iteratively reframe and increase your mastery of said challenges until you've reached a level of personal satisfaction?
3. A social/ludic experience whereby you're encountering a scenario collectively in order to have a shared experience with other players?
4. A social/ludic experience whereby you're directly competing against other players in order to build a community?
5. A social/ludic experience whereby you're directly competing against other players in order to experience satisfaction from victory?
5. Other (please explain)

Please add all that apply in your response and elucidate where needed.

[WelshMegalodon]

Something something "I feel like these days people don't even play games for the game, they just enjoy the graphics and music and story. And the misogyny and the hype train and the bitching about corporations. I wish there was more discussion on the actual mechanics of games instead of the fucking politics."

I'm not really sure why I play games, to be honest. Sometimes I think it really is because I miss the days when I had loads of free time and a single game could keep me interested for months. Other times it's the novelty of seeing examples of the craft that escape public notice - acquiring a more informed view of the medium. And yes, sometimes it is for the graphics and music, because they can and have saved less-than-remarkable gaming experiences.

I personally don't consider video games to be a great way to meet people. Tabletop, maybe, but video games? Not unless there happens to be a fighting game scene in your area, and then only if you're good enough to compete. Some people do meet significant others and life partners through MMOs, and more power to them, but I think that says more about them than it does about MMOs.

I would argue that all of the survey choices you listed above to be valid gaming experiences that have been valid to some extent for decades, not just after the PlayStation came out. Perhaps some of them have overshadowed others, but it's not like they weren't always there. Just on a much smaller scale.

P. S.: As a rule, the broadest topics always get the most responses. The problem is that depending on the topic, they may not always get the best discussions. Hopefully this one will be different.

[it290]

Nah I know man, but I'm actually trying to gain a genuine understanding here. I'm in the same boat as you, sometimes the overall experience just trumps everything and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it is really pertinent when you're trying to put a finger on where the medium is going in general. To frame the discussion more specifically, I'll use the original Castlevania, which is an example of a game that I've come back to repeatedly over the span of 30+ years. There's something in the way that game is designed and structured that just doesn't resonate at all with a certain audience, but is also timeless because the mastery curve is just so, the moment to moment thrills are just so, which seems to encapsulate what makes the medium unique for me. Castlevania is not historically a game that brought a ton of people into the medium but it embraces a purity of form that is super distinct from the examples people that people would cite today, which are alternately more filmic (ie. Uncharted and its lots), more ludic (casual games en masse, the stuff that people play on the train), or more social (the broad majority of esports and mmo games) in nature. I'd really like to spark a discussion or at least further understand whether that mechanics-centric nature is either a dying feature of the medium or a core concept that differentiates it from other things—and the idea that medium doesn't matter in a media-fluid environment is also cogent to that. Politics and identity conversations are marginally irrelevant to that in my view.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Trying to keep faith with a child I once was, myself.

[kitten]

your categories feel kind of narrow? people play games for a hugely diverse number of reasons and then play different kinds of games for different reasons beyond that.

even when playing an action game, i might shift from an intent of enjoying it as a series of challenges to enjoying it for its narrative or presentation, and within that i might enjoy its cinematic narrative, the play narrative that i'm crafting, or some marriage of those two things interacting well with each other. i could just enjoy going through it to check out all the neat assets and music, etc. "play" or interaction in general might not even be an important factor. symphony of the night feels like an interactive sprite museum more than a game, most of the time, to me.

a single-player game could also be enjoyed because of the co-operative narrative that arises from communicating with someone else while you play - how much more fun is a kusoge when you're either watching someone suffer through it or providing laughs for another? even without interaction, that's often the draw to someone watching a stream, which has become one of the primary ways that modern enthusiasts enjoy a game (without even playing it!).

i understanding you're asking for a 'primary' way we view games, but i don't think there is one. most of my posting on here is about classic action games, and i take to the majority of them with a certain mentality to overcome them and better myself, but i'm a huge sucker for presentation and regularly rate some games that impress me with that aspect higher than games with more refined challenge, especially if i find the challenge unpleasant for a wide variety of reasons. i like gun-dec better than ninja gaiden, even though i can nomiss clear either and recognize ninja gaiden as the much more intense game.

a lot of revisits to my favorite games are casual, too - i don't always seek to improve myself and often think i've "earned" my shitty, casual, sloppy clears after my hard-earned nomiss or 1cc. my second favorite game of all time is undertale, and i've never even done its hard mode (or killed a single enemy) because while i may enjoy its mechanics for how they add a sense of expression or bit of tension to the game, i don't think they're tuned for particularly exciting or well-honed challenge. also, you know, you have to be evil by the game's standards to even play its harder challenges, and i play the game because i want to feel kind. it's a silly power fantasy, but having a capacity to produce kindness feels enriching and i wish more games did it in the way that one does.

for me, i most commonly look for a precise level of challenge or involvement that stimulates me enough to distract me without inundating me with such a great challenge that i begin to stress out over it. i also look for a degree of novelty & whimsy, as well as a significant amount of love put into the presentation and delivery of its ideas. i also highly pride a refined pacing, as i like the drip of interesting things to keep the ability to distract and engross me rather high. i most frequently prefer an active, stimulating engagement, which i think even a visual novel can deliver as long as it's told compellingly enough.

- - - - - - - - -

i think that what drives today's gamer most is a blind thirst for empowerment. but they don't just want to feel powerful through doing things, they want to be told that they're powerful. they're too insecure for most challenges in classic games that just beat levels and prefer to have it done in the most obvious, vacuous way powerful. scavenger hunts, checklists, exp bars, quests, rewards, items, tons of new levels, new plateaus - players are no longer satisfied by a challenge, they're satisfied by this notion of progress and empowerment. even twitch gamifies watching games with achievements and rewards. while a narrative or catchy gimmick might get a player into something, they're rarely ever satisfied anymore without the game delivering something to them.

just watch the history of mario games and how much they shift hard into collecting things and delivering constant 1ups, coins, and power-ups. the newest mario has something like eight-fucking-hundred moons to collect and an animation congratulating you for getting one with every single one you get. they start adding literal fanfare and applause when you do things like collect a stream of coins. look at the popularity of open-world games and their infinite "content" made to deliver hundreds of useless quests & items with full player freedom. look at any multiplayer game and the extensive meta-game they have going of of unlocking new items and quests - it used to be that winning was the motivation, but now it's an oft-myopic, lonely grind to get stuff. people often care less about being skilled and more about just dumping more time and having more stuff. this urge to collect and acquire goes so deep that it effects their real-life goals and orientations, owning every game for a system becomes more important than playing them, etc. have more to prove you are more. life is acquirement.

[Squire Grooktook]

It's all about narrative for me. I played games as a kid because I wanted to go on adventures to magical places and befriend unforgettable characters, and the interactivity grounds my experience of these things in a way no other medium does.

I think that all games can be seen as a narrative.. For games that don't have "story" (shmups, fighters, arcade stuff, etc.), it's your story. Your struggle to overcome overwhelming odds or to challenge a rival and become a better fighter. In a sense it's all roleplaying even if it's buried in the back of your mind.

At the same time, a more "direct" in-game narrative and characterization is just as good. I love both, and I feel both should be taken seriously. In fact, I think games are the best medium for classical adventure stories in this day and age.

The strength of a game's mechanics, to me, are how well they simulate the narrative and characters and thus enhance engagement. A good ninja action game will have mechanics that make you feel like a ninja. A good kaiju game will make you feel like you're reeking destruction on an immense scale. A good horror game makes you feel vulnerable and fragile. Good scoring mechanics encourage you to play in a "badass" way while the arcadey gauntlet nature makes it feel like a life and death struggle, etc.

For "hardcore" games, it can sometimes be easy to forget the reasons of imagination for which we got into games in the first place. As we become adults our beliefs, tastes, and values grow deeper, but as a result we sometimes forget the "core" that all those things are built on top of and sprang forth from. Sometimes you have to go back to the core to go anywhere.

[Steamflogger Boss]

I play games for different reasons depending on my mood.

[WelshMegalodon]

Castlevania is not historically a game that brought a ton of people into the medium but it embraces a purity of form that is super distinct from the examples people that people would cite today, which are alternately more filmic (ie. Uncharted and its lots), more ludic (casual games en masse, the stuff that people play on the train), or more social (the broad majority of esports and mmo games) in nature.

Couldn't it be argued that even Castlevania was intended to have a bit of a cinematic feel? Even the developers appear to have hinted at something of the sort. The filmstrip at the beginning, the short cutscenes between stages, the transition when you go through doors - those are all things that didn't have to be there but were. It's quite fitting for a series based off old Universal horror films, actually.

The original Famicom Disk System version lets you save between stages, too. It isn't quite the shining example of the arcade philosophy it's made out to be.

Of course, when you've got people calling Prince of Persia an arcade-style game you know that the actual meaning of that isn't clear.

[ACSeraph]

I play games to experience things I can't (legally or safely) experience in real life. As a recent example, I play Double Dragon because I like the idea of beating the shit out of a bunch of dudes in the street to save my girlfriend. In that sense I'm playing for the story and graphics. Now the question becomes why do I so strongly prefer NES Double Dragon's street fighting to say Batman Arkham City. The answer is primarily mechanics.

Double Dragon is limited but it's very tight and responsive. Every input is your own which greatly adds to the feeling that I am in total control of the fight. Though simplistic, the game is challenging in a way that rewards practice over time as your spacing and attack timing becomes more precise. This emulates the feeling of becoming a stronger street fighter, and pulls me into the world in a more direct, almost physical way. Batman on the other hand looks far more realistic and plays very smoothly, but feels automated and lacks sufficient challenge to foster player growth. For that reason I am unable to connect with it.

Modern games absolutely can have the same mechanical draw as retro games (See Soulsborne), but can also get away with simply relying on graphical presentation to draw in many players. The reason arcade games tend to be more mechanically focused is because graphics alone were not enough to draw the player into the world back in the day (among other reasons). Castlevania is absolutely trying to be cinematic, and it relies a lot on it's tight mechanics to bring the player into its world.

As for graphics, I think it's all preference. I find that the minimalistic style of older games actually piques my imagination in a similar way to reading a novel. When I punch those losers in DD it looks a lot different in my mind's eye than it does on the screen. Playing a graphically intense game like the Last of Us leaves little to the imagination and feels more passive.

I play fighting games semi-competitively as well and this is yet another martial arts fantasy for me. I can't do an Izuna drop in real life, but I can hone my ninjitsu in the context of a game. The online aspects emulate the feeling of training alongside other martial artists in real life. It's social, but also cinematic in its own way. We are all actors.

I think different people have different levels of involvement they want from their games. I imagine most members of this forum prefer the direct 1:1 involvement provided by mechanically tight action games, where more commonly people might prefer to only be partially involved (Assassin's Creed, auto-aim TPS games). I know others who prefer to be involved in more of an outside observer role, the hand of God if you will (RTS, RPG). But I think for the most part, everyone is pursuing some kind of fantasy when they play games.

tldr:
I like mastering action mechanics.

[BIL]

I will reply in more detail later! ^_~

It's all about narrative for me. I played games as a kid because I wanted to go on adventures to magical places and befriend unforgettable characters, and the interactivity grounds my experience of these things in a way no other medium does.

I think that all games can be seen as a narrative.. For games that don't have "story" (shmups, fighters, arcade stuff, etc.), it's your story. Your struggle to overcome overwhelming odds or to challenge a rival and become a better fighter. In a sense it's all roleplaying even if it's buried in the back of your mind.

At the same time, a more "direct" in-game narrative and characterization is just as good. I love both, and I feel both should be taken seriously. In fact, I think games are the best medium for classical adventure stories in this day and age.

The strength of a game's mechanics, to me, are how well they simulate the narrative and characters and thus enhance engagement. A good ninja action game will have mechanics that make you feel like a ninja. A good kaiju game will make you feel like you're reeking destruction on an immense scale. A good horror game makes you feel vulnerable and fragile. Good scoring mechanics encourage you to play in a "badass" way while the arcadey gauntlet nature makes it feel like a life and death struggle, etc.

For "hardcore" games, it can sometimes be easy to forget the reasons of imagination for which we got into games in the first place. As we become adults our beliefs, tastes, and values grow deeper, but as a result we sometimes forget the "core" that all those things are built on top of and sprang forth from. Sometimes you have to go back to the core to go anywhere.

ONE LIFE CLEAR = REAL STORY MODE
(Garegga et al = REAL SAMSARA)

[Ji-L87]

i think that what drives today's gamer most is a blind thirst for empowerment. but they don't just want to feel powerful through doing things, they want to be told that they're powerful. they're too insecure for most challenges in classic games that just beat levels and prefer to have it done in the most obvious, vacuous way powerful. scavenger hunts, checklists, exp bars, quests, rewards, items, tons of new levels, new plateaus - players are no longer satisfied by a challenge, they're satisfied by this notion of progress and empowerment. even twitch gamifies watching games with achievements and rewards. while a narrative or catchy gimmick might get a player into something, they're rarely ever satisfied anymore without the game delivering something to them.

Big oof, this is me

To be honest, I've never found something as simple as a "highscore board" or ranking list or time attack to be of any real value to me. I don't really go in for needless challenges and 1CCs. My goal is to get through a game and that's it - be that credit spamming or otherwise. I just want to traverse it's terrain, soak it all in. Now, I do love me some endgame content or bonus content after the game (as an example, I really loved how once you beat the Mega man Battle Network games, while the narrative didn't go further - there was a plethora of things now available for you to do. New side missions and new enemies to beat).

I also have been generally very welcoming to the more cinematic presentation that modern games have, although I do admit that in a general sense both gameplay and re-playability has suffered as a consequence.
There are very few games I find myself returning to all the time now that I'm an adult with money. Partly because working drains my soul and I spend most evenings cooking and sitting down for some mindless entertainment on youtube - and partly because I just have so many games to pick and choose from. Games on steam and other digital storefronts, physical copies on my shelves and being able to find most of what I might want on the internet somehow.

Not to mention that a lot of the time I don't really feel like playing a game, just experiencing it and that I can do on youtube or twitch. And while I said I want to "traverse it's terrain" often just a little bit is fine to satisfy my curiosity.
I'm also really dense when it comes to mechanics and that frequently results in either boredom or frustration or both.

And lastly, while I love the idea of multiplayer games and the community and guilds and the like, I'm primarily a solo player and my friends don't enjoy the same games I do outside a small pool of mostly FPS titles.

[drauch]

I just really love fiction and immersion. And brutally murdering things very quickly in cruel and unique ways.

[TransatlanticFoe]

What do you mean by "ludic" in this context? I've genuinely never heard anyone use the term outside of the game Ludo (from the wonderful school of naming games that led to Subbuteo, because the super-generic "Hobby" was turned down). Is there a particular definition of "play" we should be considering?

[cicada88]

Usually, challenge/competition

Frequently, style/aesthetics/immersion

Rarely, narrative itself



Social gaming was great as a younger kid, but I don't really have that as an adult aside from the challenge/competition aspect of some online multiplayer games.

[it290]

What do you mean by "ludic" in this context? I've genuinely never heard anyone use the term outside of the game Ludo (from the wonderful school of naming games that led to Subbuteo, because the super-generic "Hobby" was turned down). Is there a particular definition of "play" we should be considering?

In the context of this post, I'm using it to refer to play for its own sake, that is to say the feeling derived from the activity of play itself, external to (say) getting to the payoff of a story, competing with others, or even winning/beating a game, but inclusive of things like pure visceral enjoyment of mechanics and feedback and intellectual enjoyment derived from 'play-like' activities like strategizing, exploration, and experimentation.

[BurlyHeart]

Do you think of games primarily as:

1. A narrative/ludic experience whereby you encounter a series of challenges and overcome them in order to experience a story and/or create your own story, after which you're done and ready to move on to the next story?
2. A ludic experience whereby you encounter a series of challenges in order to iteratively reframe and increase your mastery of said challenges until you've reached a level of personal satisfaction?
3. A social/ludic experience whereby you're encountering a scenario collectively in order to have a shared experience with other players?
4. A social/ludic experience whereby you're directly competing against other players in order to build a community?
5. A social/ludic experience whereby you're directly competing against other players in order to experience satisfaction from victory?
5. Other (please explain)

Please add all that apply in your response and elucidate where needed.

I definitely resonate with no.2 more than other options, and my personal satisfaction with a game shifts as I get better at it or the genre in general. Playing fighting games against real people means the bar is always being raised, and I like that. It's a constant challenge that I have to meet. Whilst I do go to locals, I'm also lucky to have great netcode here in East Asia, meaning I can take on the challenge most days in the comfort of my living room. This may sound like no.5, but the satisfaction I gain is not in victory, it's in the journey. In the constant improvement. In other genres, such as beat 'em ups and run 'n' guns, the goal is nearly always a 1cc. I was never a MAME guy, and in fact only bought my first PC this year. Playing the Contra Collection showed me the value of save states, and I will using this, or similar method, to practice games in future.

Before I moved out here, I would have classified my self as belonging to no.1. I enjoyed playing alone and playing casually, moving from one game to the next. Not thinking too deeply, and enjoying the escapism of it all. I don't know what changed. Nowadays I can't sit through Unchartered or God of War without feeling bored. Maybe it was reading this forum and seeing people's achievements. Or maybe it is linked to my ability to play fighting games with real people on a regular basis. Or maybe I feel free to pursue my own wants having left the rat race behind. Regardless of the reason, I enjoy playing games where I can learn the mechanics and improve my level of play.

[Xyga]

Why one choice ? what I like with video games is that they can be anything.

[Squire Grooktook]

Why one choice ? what I like with video games is that they can be anything.

Same. One of the fascinating things about the medium is how open and changeable it is compared to others. You don't have to work around a 2 hour runtime like movies or commit to a first/third person narration like in literature. You have nearly infinite options for achieving whatever you want to achieve when you design a game.

[Marc]

Yes, agree with the two replies above. The beauty of gaming, like music, is that I'm very rarely in a mood where there isn't something that fits.

[Steamflogger Boss]

Why one choice ? what I like with video games is that they can be anything.

This is basically what I was getting at earlier.

I play pinball and tetris frequently for the try to improve my score experience. I play many old games simply to see if I can even beat them. I love playing fighters with buddies and booze. I love strategy games that require actually thinking of solutions and jrpgs that reward you for knowing how the combat system works and aren't just sloppy grindfests. I can also enjoy narrative/cinema type games.

Games are fun, my friends. Life is too short to play ones you don't enjoy but as I get older I find myself enjoying more and more. A family member slowly dying due to an incurable condition while I could do nothing but watch and try to make life easier for them might have changed my general attitude lately. Cheers shmupsfam.

[BryanM]

The biggest draw for me is the gambling/numbers go up systems exploitation aspects of video games, that's where the vast bulk of my playtime inhabits. Other aspects fall far short (or in the case of actively putting in effort like an arcade game, can't be used to gobble up as much time.)

Let us take Dragon Warrior 1 as an example. You're a blue magic swordsdude. In a tiny fantasy kingdom under siege by monsters and their king. The most basic of set ups.

The list of things you should be able to do, but are unable to do, as a person in this world are infinite:

* You can't walk up to one of the villagers and ask them to help you.
* You can't chop up a bunch of monsters and set up a foodstall selling werewolf tacos.
* You can't go swimming on a beach infested by ghosts.
* You can't punch the lazy princess when she demands that you carry her home.
* You can't set the forest full of slimes on fire with your magic.

There's really been zero efforts in simulation when it comes to commercial entities, all investment has gone into aesthetics. 7th Saga should be a very crude early example of having something like other living entities in the world with you, instead of a rare example.

Novels are better at this. No wonder a simple adventure game about a Goose is able to go viral - there's basically no competition out there.

[Squire Grooktook]

The list of things you should be able to do, but are unable to do, as a person in this world are infinite:

* You can't walk up to one of the villagers and ask them to help you.
* You can't chop up a bunch of monsters and set up a foodstall selling werewolf tacos.
* You can't go swimming on a beach infested by ghosts.
* You can't punch the lazy princess when she demands that you carry her home.
* You can't set the forest full of slimes on fire with your magic.

Sounds like you might like Tabletop RPG's if you want tons of creativity and a flexible stage. Though the true fun of those games tend to be in the narrative once again: character development and relationships, heroes journey, etc.

In theory you could have your character settle down and become an onion farmer, though most games are mechanically slanted towards adventure, combat, and tough social situations because...well, that's what's interesting*. Onion farmer adventures are likely to devolve into freeform rp or "why don't you just write a novel instead?"...though there are exceptions. And even in an actiony campaign you still get episodes that are nothing but talking and character bonding.

You certainly get some interesting situations though, like the time one of my characters in an occult cyberpunk game won a mutant beauty pageant by summoning twin dragons for a singing duet, which then exploded into lotus petals.

Spoiler

GM:
The crowd remains completely silent.

Key:
"I...I hope you enjoyed..." Key whispers

GM:
The silence persists for almost a full minute before being broken by a single voice.

"I wanna **** it!"

Rei maneuvers through the crowd to find and detain the source of the voice, but more similar exclamations are heard until soon, the audience becomes a sea of cheering masses!

"She's nervous! So cute!"
"I want a mutie wife!"
"Mutant waifu! Mutant waifu!"

Aya turns to the other judges, flustered.

*Something one learns from studying Tabletop mechanics is that the most interesting and deepest mechanics are almost always naturally derived from high tension situations. IE where there are stakes.

[WelshMegalodon]

*Something one learns from studying Tabletop mechanics is that the most interesting and deepest mechanics are almost always naturally derived from high tension situations. IE where there are stakes.

Off topic, but I'd really like to know what you think of D&D from 3e onward basically being "roll for skill check and listen to the DM talk" half the time.

[Squire Grooktook]

*Something one learns from studying Tabletop mechanics is that the most interesting and deepest mechanics are almost always naturally derived from high tension situations. IE where there are stakes.

Off topic, but I'd really like to know what you think of D&D from 3e onward basically being "roll for skill check and listen to the DM talk" half the time.

As heretical as it may be, I've never actually played D&D since most of my friends are not fans of it for similar reasons!

I tend to lean more towards Japanese TRPG's (Tokyo Nova, Nechronica, Tenra Bansho Zero). It's actually a pretty interesting subject in itself how Japanese design in this case somewhat mirrors the divide between video game wrpg's vs jrpg's. Most of the time it comes down to a more streamlined but approachable and focused experience with a more colorful and out of ordinary theme.

[RIP-Felix]

Being more general (The To Long; Didn't Read):
I would rank abstractions over photo-realism, balance of linear and open world designed over either individually, and in room multiplayer over online/social experiences.

As I age I've noticed I prefer to replay old favorites or discover hidden gems I missed earlier in life. Games on older consoles, thrift bins, or whatever. My taste for them is generally in the RPG, Platform, and adventure categories and depends on my mood and energy level:
- sometimes I'm in the mood for an easy experience, not too much thinking. That's when I prefer a linear story driven narrative. I usually don't like highly cinematic games that are more movie than game play, but I don't mind cut-scenes if they are at the end of a level and less than 5 minutes. I prefer control or interaction during them, like half-life or Halo. Balance is the key. I came for a game experience, not a movie. I don't like when they take my choice away and blur the line between game and movie. I chose to play a game, not a movie. If I wanted to watch a movie, I would have chosen one to watch. When I'm in the mood for linear progression (Crash Bandicoot) not too much choice or thinking (the elder scrolls), I still want it to be a game. This has become more so the case as I age, I have less energy and just want to unwind/relax. In that frame of mind I also prefer cartoon, comedy, non-realistic games (mario, sonic, sly cooper, animal crossing, conkers bad fur day, and etc.) So no call of duty after work, unless I need to vent. In which case a workout is more constructive. Ratchet & Clank was a good mix of everything in one game.

- Other times I'm in the mood for a bit more thinking, but not stress. A nice RPG like Final Fantasy or action adventure like Zelda is just the fix I need. That's a good Saturday binge, if I can make time for it. More exploration, not completely open/non-linear, but less story and more choice than a mindless game. Skyrim is perhaps too violent for a Saturday morning, but if it had more story driven linearity I think I'd enjoy it more (slightly too open world a concept, but addictive regardless).

- As for multiplayer. I prefer the with actual friends in the room, not online. Party games with real friends beets any online experience hands down. Jack Box Party Pack, Mario/Wario Party games, Cart racing, Wii sports, Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, soul calibure, super smash bros., power stone, 4 player worms, the list can continue for miles. These games are best played with friends, over and that happens more rarely. I think these are the most rewarding gaming experiences. Online multiplayer/social games are more accessible, but meh by comparison.